International Politics
COMPREHENSIVE EXAM
FALL 2009
GWU
Majors: choose four of the following
questions.
Minors: choose three of the following
questions.
Watch the time, all questions count
equally.
1.
Evaluate the following
statement: “All IR theory is a product of its time.”
2.
Would international politics be
notably different without the participation of non-state actors? If so how, and
through what specific mechanisms do they make a difference? If not, why not?
3.
Under what circumstances might
multi-method work be preferable to single-method research in international
relations? Under what circumstances
might multi-method work not be preferable?
4.
How well do scholars of
international politics account for change?
5.
Compare and contrast theories
of cooperation and non-cooperation offered by scholars of international
security on the one hand, and international political economy, on the other.
Why are they different? Should they be?
6.
Many scholars of comparative
politics argue that American politics should simply be considered a branch of
comparative politics. In a similar vein,
is it useful to think of American foreign policy as simply a branch of general
international relations scholarship, or is there something different about
American foreign policy?
International Relations Field Exam
January 2019
Yale University
Please answer one and only one question
from each of the three sections below. Keep in mind that you will be evaluated
not only on your knowledge of the relevant literature, but also on your ability
to think independently and make a compelling argument.
Section I (pick one):
1. Many classic theories of international
relations treat states as unitary actors with well-defined national interests.
Recent work in international security, IPE, and cooperation departs from this approach,
as scholars devote more attention to domestic political entities, processes,
and institutions. Has this turn improved the development of generalizable
theories of IR? Discuss some examples, evaluate whether the gains in
explanatory power merit the loss of parsimony, and specify the conditions, if
any, under which the unitary actor assumption is preferable.
2. What is the role of the “rationality
assumption” in IR theory? What are the pros and cons of deploying it when
building a theory of international relations? Discuss in light of relevant
examples in the scholarship.
Section II (pick one):
1. Traditional, unscientific work on the
causes of war pointed to factors such as human nature, elite and bureaucratic
preferences, and state motives, among many others drivers of conflict. More recently,
rationalist explanations for war focus on incomplete information, commitment
problems, and the indivisibility of disputed objects as the only rational
causes of war. What, in light of this shift in the literature, is the role
played by the “classical” causes of war mentioned above? How was this shift
productive?
2. What would you advise president Trump
to do regarding Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs? Ground your advice in
relevant theories and empirical evidence.
Section III (pick one):
1. In the 1980s and 1990s, IR scholars
vigorously debated whether international institutions have any independent
effect on state behavior. Has this debate been resolved? Summarize the realist
critique and describe some ways in which international laws and institutions
are theorized to affect state behavior. Is there convincing empirical evidence
that institutions change outcomes? Cite specific examples and discuss how
studies have dealt with obstacles to causal inference.
2. Eric Posner argues that we need to
abandon international law of human rights because it lacks efficacy, and focus
on development and aid instead because those are effective. Do you find this view
persuasive? In making your argument, use both theory and empirical evidence,
including concrete examples.
